Return to self-nomination Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: gburton
Date/Time: Wed, June 14, 2000 at 7:06 PM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.7 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: no changes in 10% nomination threshold?

Message:
 

 
Dear Andrew,

As nearly as I can determine, 39 people have posted regarding the 10% level in self-nomination. Of these, 33 oppose that level as it is currently stated, and 6 (including yourself) support it. Of the 6 who support it, 3 seem to believe that it will create feedback to improve the rules due to it's inherent contradictions, rather than supporting it in any kind of absolute sense.

That's 84.5% of those interested opposed to the 10% limit - closer to consensus than many processes manage to get.

In fact, on June 5th, you posted:
"In general, I'm persuaded that a lower threshold is a good idea..... The regions are of *very* different sizes (members-wise), so I favor the use of a fixed percentage, rather than absolute numbers.  I think 1-2% is too low."

Yet the proposed rules page, updated June 7 according to the page, reflects no change in this requirement whatsoever. Andrew, might you comment on why that hasn't been addressed, and what we might expect to see between now and Yokohama?

Thanks,
Greg

......addendum data used to determine support figures......

---Oppose 10% support, or wish to modify if 10% is adopted---
Why require ANY threshold of support? - Eric Weisberg
Nomination Process Comment / Cal. Corp. Code Sec. 5110 et seq. — Bret Fausett
10% is still too high — GreggCercy
Comments on the "Proposed Rules for Self-Nomination" — Jon Weinberg
US centricism — francis
10% support — ikoniclast
CPSR COMMENT ON ICANN RULES FOR NOMINATION — hklein
CPSR comment — frgriffin
I declare for previous thinkers — lysander
Agree in hope — maborg
My official recommendation on the proposed rules — traP
A hearty ( and verbose ) concurance. — Wardish
Comments from CDT and Common Cause — sadraheim
CDT/Common Cause is right — abloch
Threshold question — rtreitz
Disparate Treatment — Dennis
How to please everyone ... — gareth
Barriers for nominated members — trickstar
Re: Barriers — Katanos
Comments on proposed rules — yaffle
Egregious flaws in Proposed Rules for Self-Nomination — dblake
I agree! — Ling
Thank you — reedpc
Proposed Rules for "Self-Nomination" — katsuey
Self Nomination rules — len.cohen
I prefer the MAC approach — weisberg
Comments on Nomination Rules — ERony
Comments on Nomination rules — Mueller
Preliminary comments — froomkin
Self Nominating Rules — conways
General comments to the propousal — mkr
minimal support level — gburton
Number of self-nominated candidates on final ballot — shugal

---Don't Care/Support 10%---
who cares about California's laws — johnwerneken
In support of the rules as written — neomax
Agreement — gpatten
I agree — ralphj
open nominations — debb

     
 

Link: Unofficial At Large Site


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy